Abstract/Summary

This paper reports part of a qualitative study into evolving practice in the implementation of the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) construction dispute resolution technique, a variant of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) concept used in the US and Canada. Data was collected through a focus group interview of 20 highly experienced dispute resolution practitioners from engineering and the law. The group was assembled from members of FIDIC-NET with direct experience of project DABs. The part reported here concerns practice and procedure for establishing DABs. The main findings are that: constitution of the DABs is often delayed because of either project owners' ignorance of the DAB process or deterrence by the cost of the DABs; such owners also tend to insist on appointing DAB members from local engineers and lawyers without sufficient understanding of the DAB process; rates of remuneration of DAB members vary widely; the training provision for DAB membership and advocacy skills is inadequate; the process of selecting candidates for DAB membership and negotiating the tripartite agreement between each member and the contractual parties needs to be navigated with great care to avoid raising ethical problems. The research contribution is threefold. First, it highlights the importance of realistic fees for DAB members within a standard framework in achieving timely establishment of a board that works well as a team. Second, it illustrates the use of qualitative focus group interview to study the impact of new contract terms from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Finally, it identifies areas where further research is needed.